Matthew Hodgson wrote:
These rules are all fair enough - but they are then ambiguous for
$::Foo. Is that the leaf name variable Foo in your current (innermost)
namespace?
It is not ambiguous if the sigil rules that expression. I assume
that the parameters of a sub are definining innermost
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, TSa (Thomas Sandlaß) wrote:
Matthew Hodgson wrote:
I guess $::('Foo') was a bad example - $Foo=Foo; $::($Foo) would have
been better at illustrating my point - which was that if $::($Foo)
searches outwards through namespace for a variable whose name is held in
$Foo, then
HaloO Matthew,
you wrote:
I wasn't getting hung up on whether $::($varname) should somehow be
cached to avoid a dynamic lookup based on the current value of $varname
every time. And I assume that if $*Main::foo hadn't been created,
assigning to $::($varname) would create it as expected
TSa (Thomas Sandlaß) wrote:
Here your expectations might be disappointed, sorry.
The non-symbolic form $*Main::foo = 'bar' creates code that
makes sure that the lhs results in a proper scalar container.
The symbolic form might not be so nice and return undef!
Then undef = 'bar' of course let's
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, TSa (Thomas Sandlaß) wrote:
Matthew Hodgson wrote:
I'm very surprised that package variables end up in OUR::, however -
because surely they're not necessarily lexically scoped - and the whole
point of 'our' was lexical global scoping, right? :/
Sorry, what is 'lexical
On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 07:25:35PM +0100, Matthew Hodgson wrote:
: Hi all,
:
: I've spent some of the afternoon wading through A12 and S10 trying to
: thoroughly understand scope in perl 6, in light of the death of use vars
: and the addition of class (as well as package module) namespaces.
:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 07:25:35PM +0100, Matthew Hodgson wrote:
:
: So the question is: what is the correct syntax for referring to package
: variables in the default namespace?
The * looks like a twigil but it isn't really. It's short for *::,
where
